Is khalsa aid wasting sangats resources on muslim rohingya?

[proactive]

10 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

What about thoses sikh who migrated to west punjab from eastern district to setlle in new colonies like lyalpur ? thus decreasing their numbers in eastern district.Most Kashmiris settled in Jalandhar and Amritsar.And both of these districts did not become part of Pakistan.

Most of the Kashmiris were actually settled in the Lahore division which they boosted the Muslim percentage by about 2.5%. They were negligible in Jalandhar district and in Amritsar they boosted the Muslim percentage by 3%. The Sikhs lost their best lands because the population factor was given importance over land ownership whether in specific areas or in overall land ownership. In the British Punjab the Sikhs owned 27.7% of the land and so should have received 27.7% of British Punjab and if combined with the Sikh states then double the area of the present Punjab in India should have gone to the Sikhs. The Sikh owned 57% of the land in Lahore district and so Lahore district should have gone to East Punjab.

 

The irony of the so-called border ceremony at Wagah  is that both these Muslims and Hindus are standing on land that belonged to Sikhs!  

[YOYO29]

36 minutes ago, proactive said:

whereas a Muslim raping a non-Muslim women can find easy justification in the teachings of Mohammed.

Islam is two edged sword you can take any verse from it and use it for your personal gain.The point is we are not sure if that rapist was acting on the teaching of Muhammad or not (Rape is serious offence in Islam btw) may be he did so to take revenge.As rohangya Muslim women have been raped by peaceful buddhists. When you refuse to accept a group as citizen of your country and deny them citizenship merely on the basis that they are not part of Burmese society.And on top of that try to kill them and drove them out from your country,you're playing with fire.I hope no innocent Buddhist gets killed in the world for the action of these <banned word filter activated> Burmese.

[YOYO29]

12 minutes ago, proactive said:

Most of the Kashmiris were actually settled in the Lahore division which they boosted the Muslim percentage by about 2.5%. They were negligible in Jalandhar district and in Amritsar they boosted the Muslim percentage by 3%.

Any source for this statment? Lahore has been under Muslim rule for a long time and muslim sufi missionaries were also active in this part.It is no wonder these areas became Muslim majority. Muslims were economicaly backwards that was also a factor which forced Muslims to demand Pakistan.Despite being majority Muslim province,Hindu and Sikhs were dominated in Punjab. 

[YOYO29]

17 minutes ago, proactive said:

The irony of the so-called border ceremony at Wagah  is that both these Muslims and Hindus are standing on land that belonged to Sikhs! 

Its time to move and accept reality.There was time when Mughals owned India but now they are nowhere to be seen.Similarly once romans ruled a large part of Europe now they are history.Always look to future.We should not be obsessed with past.

[proactive]

2 minutes ago, YOYO29 said:

Any source for this statment? Lahore has been under Muslim rule for a long time and muslim sufi missionaries were also active in this part.It is no wonder these areas became Muslim majority. Muslims were economicaly backwards that was also a factor which forced Muslims to demand Pakistan.Despite being majority Muslim province,Hindu and Sikhs were dominated in Punjab. 

The figures are from the 1931 census of Punjab which was the last time that caste and ethnic origin were taken before partition. Kashmiris in Lahore district  26K out of 1.2 million. In Lahore division 119K out of 4.8 million. In Amritsar district 27.4K out of 907K. 

So being economically backward gives the Muslims the right to usurp the lawful property of Sikhs. So if you have a house and you rent it out to 5 tenants then those tenants should become the owners as they outnumber you and they are more economically backward than you as a property owner? 

[proactive]

6 minutes ago, YOYO29 said:

Its time to move and accept reality.There was time when Mughals owned India but now they are nowhere to be seen.Similarly once romans ruled a large part of Europe now they are history.Always look to future.We should not be obsessed with past.

You have misunderstood my statement. I am not claiming these areas because the Sikhs ruled over them but that Sikhs owned the land. The Turks cannot claim Palestine because it was a part of their empire but the Palestinians can because they owned the land. It's not about rule but land ownership. Sikhs owned 57% of the land in Lahore district, the fact is that the British took the district from the owners and passed it on to the tenants much as in the analogy I gave in the previous post.

Maybe you should tell the Palestinians to move on and lose any hope of recovering their land that the Jews took.

[YOYO29]

8 minutes ago, proactive said:

The figures are from the 1931 census of Punjab which was the last time that caste and ethnic origin were taken before partition. Kashmiris in Lahore district  26K out of 1.2 million. In Lahore division 119K out of 4.8 million. In Amritsar district 27.4K out of 907K. 

So being economically backward gives the Muslims the right to usurp the lawful property of Sikhs. So if you have a house and you rent it out to 5 tenants then those tenants should become the owners as they outnumber you and they are more economically backward than you as a property owner? 

I will check those stats in a while. And I know how this property ended up in your hands. Most Muslim lands were grabbed by sikhs and hindu money lender (for petty loans).This is what happened in my area.Once a Muslim took loan from any khatri it was impossible to repay the loan hence he had to hand over his property. After sikhs conquered Punjab, many muslim lands in gujranwala area were given to sikhs.When Muslim Chatta tribe failed to defend Gujranwala from Ranjit Singh. The land you lost in west Punjab was compensated by Muslim land in East Punjab.Though it was less than what sikh left behind in west punjab.

[Dsinghd]

8 minutes ago, proactive said:

You have misunderstood my statement. I am not claiming these areas because the Sikhs ruled over them but that Sikhs owned the land. The Turks cannot claim Palestine because it was a part of their empire but the Palestinians can because they owned the land. It's not about rule but land ownership. Sikhs owned 57% of the land in Lahore district, the fact is that the British took the district from the owners and passed it on to the tenants much as in the analogy I gave in the previous post.

Maybe you should tell the Palestinians to move on and lose any hope of recovering their land that the Jews took.

Good news. Sikhism is growing again in Pakistan. There are Sikhs in the Pakistani army. Every year thousands of Sikhs go to Nankana Sahib with full security.

[YOYO29]

24 minutes ago, YOYO29 said:

The figures are from the 1931 census of Punjab

1931 gazetteers are not available on internet. Do you have any copy ? if so ,can u share screenshots ?

[proactive]

You are right there was a fight over land in Gujranwala district between Sikh Jats and Muslim Jats and Rajputs. This is not to say that Sikh Jats did not own land in Gujranwala already but they along with Sikh Jats from Majha did take over Muslim villages. This type of land grab in those times when there was no central authority was quite normal.  Muslim Bhatti Rajputs in Hissar district did grab land from the Hindu Jats before these lands were grabbed by the Sikh Jats of Patiala. The British when they took over in 1849 did pass the land in Gujranwala back to the Muslim Rajputs. In Gujrat the Sikh Lobanas took over villages from the Muslim Gujjars which they managed to retain even after the British took over. 

The above is not really relevant because the lands owned by the Sikhs in Lahore were lands owned by Jats who became Sikhs during the Misl and Maharaja Ranjit Singh period. So these lands were ancestral lands and not lands captured by force. 

The acquisition of land by non-agricultural money lenders was outlawed by 1901. So the lands acquired by such means would have been minimal after that.